Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Electronic and Handwritten Feedback: A Follow-up Study across an Entire Midwestern University Campus
Main Article Content
Abstract
Some instructors, besides awarding grades, provide comments/feedback on students’ assignments. Views of students on feedback help frame effective and efficient teaching and learning. However, students’ perceptions of feedback, including handwritten and electronic feedback (e-feedback), are under researched. To fill the void, in the academic year 2012 to 2013, all undergraduate students at a Midwestern university were invited to complete a survey for the purposes of exploring their perceptions of which feedback form they preferred: handwritten or e-feedback and of understanding related rationale behind their preferences related to accessibility, timeliness, legibility, quality and personal. The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, and show that the majority of the respondents preferred e-feedback. With respect to rationale, more respondents and higher ratings overall were given to e-feedback for timeliness, accessibility, and legibility. Although more respondents overall favored e-feedback the overall ratings were higher in handwritten feedback for its quality and personal. Age and class standing are positively associated with students’ desire for feedback in general and for e-feedback. However, there was a negative association between students’ GPA and feedback in general and e-feedback. Addressed in this article are also limitations, educational implications, and future research suggestions.
Downloads
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
References
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2010). Instructor feedback: How much do students really want? Journal of Marketing Education, 32(2), 172-181. doi: 10.1177/0273475309360159
Bai, X., & Smith, M. B. (2010). Promoting hybrid learning through a sharable elearning approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(3), 13-24.
Bakerson, M. (2009). Persistence and success: A study of cognitive, social, and institutional factors related to retention of Kalamazoo Promise Recipients at Western Michigan University. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Database: A&I. . Western Michigan University, United States
Ball, E. (2009). A participatory action research study on handwritten annotation feedback and its impact on staff and student. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 111-124.
Bridge, P., & Appleyard, R. (2008). A comparison of electronic and paper-based assignment submission and feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 644-650.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219-233.
Case, S. (2007). Reconfiguring and realigning the assessment feedback processes for an undergraduate criminology degree. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 285-299.
Chang, N. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ views: How did e-feedback through assessment facilitate their learning? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 16-33.
Chang, N., Watson, B., Bakerson, M., Williams, E., McGoron, F. , & Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching with Technology, 1(1), 1-23.
Charmaz, C. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design. London: Sage.
Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.
Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. (2008). Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 486-500. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00745.x
Di Costa, N. (2010). Feedback on Feedback: Student and academic perceptions, expectations and practices within an undergraduate Pharmacy course. Paper presented at the ATN Assessment Conference 2010 University of Technology Sydney.
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 53-64.
Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning, and development. Berkshire, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from feedback on assessment. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103-117.
Krause, U., & Stark, R. (2010). Reflection in example- and problem-based learning: Effects of reflection prompts, feedback and cooperative learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(4), 255-272.
Mann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26(1), 7-20.
Matthews, K., Janicki, T., He, L., & Patterson, L. (2012). Implementation of an automated grading system with an adaptive learning component to affect student feedback and eesponse time. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23(1), 71-83.
Mertler, C. A., & Vanatta, R. A. . (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrzcak Publishing.
Morrissey, G., Coolican, M., & Wolfgang, D. (2011). An intersection of interests: The millennial generation and an alternative world language teacher education program. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference New Orleans, LA.
National Union of Students. (2008). Student Experience Report. http://aces.shu.ac.uk/employability/resources/NUSStudentExperienceReport.pdf
Parkin, H., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in enhancing students’ engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 963-973.
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541007
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rosenberg, K. M. (2007). The excel statistics companion. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3), 78-88.
Rushoff, D. (2013, January 15, 2013). Online courses need human element to educate. from http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/rushkoff-moocs/index.html
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541015
Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the Student Voice: A Higher Education Innovation Program Project. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Siew, P. F. (2003). Flexible on-line assessment and feedback for teaching linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 34(1), 43-52.
Stevenson, J. P. (2007). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yang, Y., & Durrington, V. (2010). Investigation of students' perceptions of online course quality. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 341-361.